Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...

John Kuthe....

On Jul 29, 7:26*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> John Kuthe....

About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
works!

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>>
>> John Kuthe....
>
> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> works!
>
> John Kuthe...

No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
"tests" ??

On Jul 29, 8:05*am, Goomba > wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> >> John Kuthe....
>
> > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > works!
>
> > John Kuthe...
>
> No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> "tests" ??

Maybe he does it to irritate you, personally. Of course, even seeing
the topic, you clicked on it anyway. Do you have a metered modem or
something? I wasn't aware that bandwidth was in short supply these
days.

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:

> Maybe he does it to irritate you, personally. Of course, even seeing
> the topic, you clicked on it anyway. Do you have a metered modem or
> something? I wasn't aware that bandwidth was in short supply these
> days.
>
> --Bryan

Maybe if he wasn't such a wee little pill he'd have a job, eh?
The two of you are just creepy together and individually. Since you're
such an ass about trans fats, I'm entitled to get annoyed with stupid
people like John Kuthe. That he can't figure out how to get a simple
newsgroup server (free or next to) he doesn't need to have PMS every few
weeks over his lousy choice of using Google Groups.

On Jul 29, 8:12*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:05*am, Goomba > wrote:
>
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> > >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> > >> John Kuthe....
>
> > > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > > works!
>
> > > John Kuthe...
>
> > No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> > Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> > newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> > "tests" ??
>
> Maybe he does it to irritate you, personally. *Of course, even seeing
> the topic, you clicked on it anyway. *Do you have a metered modem or
> something? *I wasn't aware that bandwidth was in short supply these
> days.
>
> --Bryan

I never think about Goomba, really, so I could not have posted this to
irritate him or her specifically. I just did a loopback test for
myself, that's all. Yes I know there are test Usenet groups, but this
is the group I wanted to test. And I did!

Deal with it!

John Kuthe...

Glad you fixed your quoted text problem.

Paul

"John Kuthe" > wrote in message
...
> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> John Kuthe....

In article >,
Goomba > wrote:

> John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
> >>
> >> John Kuthe....
> >
> > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > works!
> >
> > John Kuthe...
>
> No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> "tests" ??

1. GoogleGropes is broken. It has always been broken and always will
be. It's just not a good method for most people to read usenet
newsgroups. I personally don't think it's a good method for posting,
either, although I've never tried it.

2. Usenet is not an instantaneous communication medium. When I
started, I figured that 24 hours was a reasonable time to expect posts
to be propagated. Furthermore, why would anybody care how long it took
from the time *they* post until it shows up on *their* server? Make a
copy if you want to know what you posted. What's important is how long
it takes to propagate throughout the entire world. I've done some
database work, and it isn't necessarily true that you use the same
database for posting and query. Very often there is a separate database
for query, with different indexes and setup. There is then a feed from
the posting database to the query database. That feed may not run that
often. If your post can be read quickly, that may just mean that you
posted it right before the feed ran. If you want instantaneous, use
your phone (or chat).

3. misc.test is an appropriate group for testing. You can test to your
heart's content and not bother anybody. There are many other test
groups, also.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Jul 29, 8:05*am, Goomba > wrote:
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> > >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
> >
> > >> John Kuthe....
> >
> > > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > > works!
> >
> > > John Kuthe...
> >
> > No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> > Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> > newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> > "tests" ??
>
> Maybe he does it to irritate you, personally. Of course, even seeing
> the topic, you clicked on it anyway. Do you have a metered modem or
> something? I wasn't aware that bandwidth was in short supply these
> days.

Maybe she should do like many of us, and put him in her killfile. John
has been in and out of my killfile over the years. He got out the last
time by changing his Email address. It's a pity, because I enjoy many
of his posts, but once he gets into these annoying runs, he goes back in.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Jul 29, 8:12*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:05*am, Goomba > wrote:
>
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> > >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> > >> John Kuthe....
>
> > > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > > works!
>
> > > John Kuthe...
>
> > No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> > Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> > newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> > "tests" ??
>
> Maybe he does it to irritate you, personally. *Of course, even seeing
> the topic, you clicked on it anyway. *Do you have a metered modem or
> something? *I wasn't aware that bandwidth was in short supply these
> days.

lol.....i thought it was the year 2001 again.

On Jul 29, 2:32*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:26*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
> > Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> > John Kuthe....
>
> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> works!
>
> John Kuthe...

You can assume that Google Groups is down if the last post on this
newsgroup is more than a few hours old. The last post I get is about 8
hours old. It's down alright. :-)

On Jul 29, 8:32*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 7:26*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
> > Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> > John Kuthe....
>
> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> works!
>
> John Kuthe...

I've been having trouble too.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:05:17 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>>> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>>>
>>> John Kuthe....
>>
>> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
>> works!
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>
>No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.

Since Eternal-September and others are free I'd think it's more
stupidity and/or lazyness.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:05:17 -0400, Goomba >
> wrote:
>
>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>>>> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe....
>>> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
>>> works!
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>> No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
>
> Since Eternal-September and others are free I'd think it's more
> stupidity and/or lazyness.
>
> Lou

might explain that little unemployment issue, eh?

On Jul 29, 8:05*am, Goomba > wrote:
> John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John Kuthe > wrote:
> >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> >> John Kuthe....
>
> > About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
> > works!
>
> > John Kuthe...
>
> No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
> Why do you waste bandwidth on these reports and tests. Aren't there test
> newsgroups you could amuse yourself with for these all too frequent
> "tests" ??

GoogleGroups is crapping out again. It's 9:51 pm, and the most recent
posts I can see are from before 9:00 am. Don't take it personally
though, John, there's apparently something wrong with Goomba's
panties.

--Bryan

On 7/29/2011 3:06 PM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:05:17 -0400, >
> wrote:
>
>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 7:26 am, John > wrote:
>>>> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe....
>>>
>>> About 10 minutes or a little more. Lousy latency! But at least it
>>> works!
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>
>> No one gives a rats patoot about your cheapness, John.
>
> Since Eternal-September and others are free I'd think it's more
> stupidity and/or lazyness.
>
> Lou
>
>

Another possibility is: they have an iPod and Google Groups are
practically their only option. In my case, I use Google Groups as well
as have a block account with a paid service. I also use a free service.
I don't believe that I'm stupid although there's a good chance that I'm
lazy.

Anyway, I like to keep all my options open. My guess is that limiting
yourself and your options ain't the smartest thing one can do. The
reality is that there is a good chance that web-based applications will
be the future of computing. Most folks just don't know it yet.

John Kuthe wrote:

> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...

Why would anyone put up with it? There are decent free services and
very inexpensive great services.


Brian
--
Day 904 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.

On Jul 29, 8:26*am, John Kuthe > wrote:


> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...



They were down for two days, then up for a day, and now they're
down again. I know goggle groups is free, so I'd rather not complain
about the occasional glitch, but this has been happening quite a bit
lately. What bugs me is not so much the actual problem, whatever it
is, but rather the way Google doesn't say anything about it. It's
like being in a traffic jam. If you know what's causing it, it's not
going to get you out of there faster, but for some reason it relieves
some of the stress of being stuck when you know why. This is
happening too often for them to not say something about it, and that
****es me off. I'm not concerned so much with how long my posts take
to show up as I am with whether they're going to show up period.

TJ

Sqwertz wrote:

> On 30 Jul 2011 05:37:46 GMT, Default User wrote:
>
> > John Kuthe wrote:
> >
> >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
> >
> > Why would anyone put up with it? There are decent free services and
> > very inexpensive great services.
>
> I don't understand. And I didn't see that he started 6 threads on the
> ****ing subject. Next time I'm going to plonk him. And I'm gouing to
> throw in Bryan and make it true Daily Double. Those two are always
> humping each other's leg and it's just too much bother for so little
> value.

Yeah, I didn't realize that there were some many threads either. I've
mostly been hitting usenet on weekends, so I read the most recent
threads first. This was the first I saw.

"Food Snob" went into the KF long ago. Oddly, there's someone here who
seems to think that I'm him, even though we don't spell our names the
same.



Brian
--
Day 905 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: "Cheated Hearts" (Yeah Yeah Yeahs)

dsi1 wrote:

> Another possibility is: they have an iPod and Google Groups are
> practically their only option. In my case, I use Google Groups as
> well as have a block account with a paid service. I also use a free
> service. I don't believe that I'm stupid although there's a good
> chance that I'm lazy.

Unfortunately, recgroups doesn't have RFC. It's a much superior
web-based system.

<http://www.recgroups.com/>



Brian
--
Day 905 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: "Mysteries" (Yeah Yeah Yeahs)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:00:08 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On 30 Jul 2011 05:37:46 GMT, Default User wrote:
>
>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>>
>> Why would anyone put up with it? There are decent free services and
>> very inexpensive great services.
>
>I don't understand. And I didn't see that he started 6 threads on the
>****ing subject. Next time I'm going to plonk him. And I'm gouing to
>throw in Bryan and make it true Daily Double. Those two are always
>humping each other's leg and it's just too much bother for so little
>value.

They're both in the KF on my normal machine. Two arrogant bone heads
with no brains.

Lou

On 30 Jul 2011 17:16:27 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2011 05:37:46 GMT, Default User wrote:
>>
>> > John Kuthe wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>> >
>> > Why would anyone put up with it? There are decent free services and
>> > very inexpensive great services.
>>
>> I don't understand. And I didn't see that he started 6 threads on the
>> ****ing subject. Next time I'm going to plonk him. And I'm gouing to
>> throw in Bryan and make it true Daily Double. Those two are always
>> humping each other's leg and it's just too much bother for so little
>> value.
>
>Yeah, I didn't realize that there were some many threads either. I've
>mostly been hitting usenet on weekends, so I read the most recent
>threads first. This was the first I saw.
>
>"Food Snob" went into the KF long ago. Oddly, there's someone here who
>seems to think that I'm him, even though we don't spell our names the
>same.

You don't even need to look at the spelling to tell the difference.
He's a kook.

Lou

On 7/30/2011 7:24 AM, Default User wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
>> Another possibility is: they have an iPod and Google Groups are
>> practically their only option. In my case, I use Google Groups as
>> well as have a block account with a paid service. I also use a free
>> service. I don't believe that I'm stupid although there's a good
>> chance that I'm lazy.
>
> Unfortunately, recgroups doesn't have RFC. It's a much superior
> web-based system.
>
> <http://www.recgroups.com/>
>
>
>
> Brian

Thanks for the info - I have never seen this site before. It's pretty
snappy, isn't it? OTOH, Google Groups could be snappy too if they
dropped the majority of it's groups.

I'll see if there's anything on the site that's interesting. Mostly it's
for guys who like sports which is a good idea.

Sqwertz wrote:

> On 30 Jul 2011 17:16:27 GMT, Default User wrote:
>
> > "Food Snob" went into the KF long ago. Oddly, there's someone here
> > who seems to think that I'm him, even though we don't spell our
> > names the same.
>
> I probably had you two confused a long time ago. But I know now
> you're the one who never posts about food and just mostly lurks :-)

Nonsense. I am always up for discussing hot dogs.

I am not sure that sounded right.



Brian
--
Day 907 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Current music playing: None.

On Jul 30, 7:02*am, Tommy Joe > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:26*am, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
> > Let's see how long it takes this message to appear back to me...
>
> * * They were down for two days, then up for a day, and now they're
> down again. *I know goggle groups is free, so I'd rather not complain
> about the occasional glitch, but this has been happening quite a bit
> lately. *

It is a chronic problem lately, and in contract to past pretty good
performance it sucks royally.


> What bugs me is not so much the actual problem, whatever it
> is, but rather the way Google doesn't say anything about it. *

Google had become like MicroFAIL. Too big for it's own britches and
they know they don't have to care.


> It's
> like being in a traffic jam. *If you know what's causing it, it's not
> going to get you out of there faster, but for some reason it relieves
> some of the stress of being stuck when you know why. *This is
> happening too often for them to not say something about it, and that
> ****es me off. *I'm not concerned so much with how long my posts take
> to show up as I am with whether they're going to show up period.

I sent them a note (email) after drilling down through an obscure path
and finally finding a "contact us" page and filling out an email form,
which seems to make a small difference, IOW groups updated once a day
after, but are once again offline. :-( And I tried signing up and
apparently did register for eternal-september.org and got an email
back with my username and initial password, but have never been able
to get to news.eternal-september.org, where the email said I should go
to log in.

So I dunno.

John Kuthe...